Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Intelligent Design doesn't have to have anything to do with the bible, does it? Just saying "something created life etc" doesn't say it had to be any particular "something" like a garden of eden or an ark. Sounds kind of agnostic to me actually. So I think that's a big difference saying "it was not just chance and evolution it had a creator and a purpose behind it" is not the same as getting into stories and specifics of the creator and his goals and process as if it was history.

Maybe life was intelligently designed by the god of the Galgameks from Omicron Persiai VI, and not Earth humans at all and prophets are all just schizophrenics and the bible is a storybook? Intelligent Design people can't refute that, but Creationists can.

metallifan wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:And that girl I asked out called me a demon because I am not as churchly as her......

I'm sure speaking in tongues didn't help you either. Maybe next time you need to use actions rather than words? Walk up to her and drop your pants. If that doesn't work, then she's probably too high-and-mighty to be dating the average joe.

Maybe instead of speaking in tongues I need to be speaking in tongues?

alarmingrick wrote:

Slarg232 wrote: And that girl I asked out called me a demon because I am not as churchly as her......

sure the horns didn't help either, you deamon!

god, i so know what you mean. not sure where you live, but i'm in the beltbuckle of the "Bible Belt"!

What? I like the horns! They make opening pop cans easier!

Guitardian wrote:Intelligent Design doesn't have to have anything to do with the bible, does it? Just saying "something created life etc" doesn't say it had to be any particular "something" like a garden of eden or an ark. Sounds kind of agnostic to me actually. So I think that's a big difference saying "it was not just chance and evolution it had a creator and a purpose behind it" is not the same as getting into stories and specifics of the creator and his goals and process as if it was history.

Maybe life was intelligently designed by the god of the Galgameks from Omicron Persiai VI, and not Earth humans at all and prophets are all just schizophrenics and the bible is a storybook? Intelligent Design people can't refute that, but Creationists can.

No ID doesn't need to be related to the bible however its origins are in a modified version of creationism as an attempt to make the story offered by the bible more scientifically accurate or credible thus it is seen by some to be built on foundations proved false.

Guitardian wrote:Intelligent Design doesn't have to have anything to do with the bible, does it? Just saying "something created life etc" doesn't say it had to be any particular "something" like a garden of eden or an ark. Sounds kind of agnostic to me actually. So I think that's a big difference saying "it was not just chance and evolution it had a creator and a purpose behind it" is not the same as getting into stories and specifics of the creator and his goals and process as if it was history.

Maybe life was intelligently designed by the god of the Galgameks from Omicron Persiai VI, and not Earth humans at all and prophets are all just schizophrenics and the bible is a storybook? Intelligent Design people can't refute that, but Creationists can.

Creationism is creationism regardless who which god the religion belongs too, be it Yahweh, Allah or the god of the Galgameks from Omicron Persiai VI. ID forwards the "something guided the formation of life rather than natural evolution" instead of claiming a christian god did it, this is correct - it could apply to aliens like in Stargate.

But it's plainly obvious what the application really is. They feel that by getting the suggestion of something guiding evolution as a partial victory towards promoting a creationist viewpoint. Particularly when you look at the way people try to promote ID in schools in the US. The separation of church and state can complicate things, so instead of forwarding religion in the science class they try to promote the science of ID, which supposedly isn't religious. But to ignore the fundamentals of what ID is, is to overlook a very obvious wolf in sheep's clothing.

Wow. just, wow. I don't pay attention to religion and this is why. In my head I am envisioning an arguement something like this...

the sky is purple
--that's because the light refracts differently at dusk
no sinner, it's because god is angry
--perhaps that's true, and light refracts differently through the thickness of the atmosphere at dusk
no its because you didnt kill a goat and burn it yesterday, it says right here in this book that god is angry if you dont do that
--you are correct I did not kill a goat, and light also refracts differently at dusk
so that's why the sky is purple
--that's because it is dusk
and because god is angry, right?
--i didn't say that
oh.. now look what you did! now you made the sky turn black!
--Will god be angry tomorrow?
not if I pray a lot to make up for your sins
--okay then I'll see you tomorrow
if the sun comes back... I PRAY FOR YOU THE SUN COMES BACK.. see, i'll show him it works... just wait until the sun comes up he will know i was right... mom this buy at school said that god isnt angry because he sinned...

Guitardian wrote:Maybe life was intelligently designed by the god of the Galgameks from Omicron Persiai VI, and not Earth humans at all and prophets are all just schizophrenics and the bible is a storybook? Intelligent Design people can't refute that, but Creationists can.

You can make fun of Scientology all you want, but you have to admit, the idea that aliens put us here isn't as crazy as some would believe.

(I am not a Scientologist.)

Mike Noble wrote:You can make fun of Scientology all you want

That's as far as I read. THANK YOU, A.D.D.!



...Who wants to ride bikes?

That's a good point. I don't mind the aliens put us here idea either. It's when they get into specifics, just like Biblical creationists, that things start seeming kooky. If a religion wants to have any credibility, it seems being as vague as possible would probably help. The more specific they get, the more it seems like the storytelling of bad fantasy fiction.

Mike Noble wrote:.... After all, its seems odd that an omnipotent being, who can do anything, would make earth go through millions of years just to get to humans. So, they must not have been able to create life that advanced, and had to let it evolve first....

This is one of the biggest problems I have with the attempt at combining evolution and the Bible Creation story. Not to mention the whole issue of throwing the classic problem of evil defense under the bus. It is a theological issue for sure.

By the way Intelligent design is creationism. It may be young earth or old earth but it's still creationism.

GG

generalgrog wrote: Not to mention the whole issue of throwing the classic problem of evil defense under the bus.

If you mean the argument from sin, then no, it doesn't do that. Well, it does that if you think the Bible is inerrant, which you apparently do, but don't pretend that's the only possible interpretation.

Mike Noble wrote:.... After all, its seems odd that an omnipotent being, who can do anything, would make earth go through millions of years just to get to humans. So, they must not have been able to create life that advanced, and had to let it evolve first...

God moves in mysterious ways. If it happened, God had a reason for it; that you don't know the reason doesn't make it untrue.

God is outside of time (and space), 'millions of years' don't mean the same thing to God as they do to people.

George Spiggott wrote:

Mike Noble wrote:.... After all, its seems odd that an omnipotent being, who can do anything, would make earth go through millions of years just to get to humans. So, they must not have been able to create life that advanced, and had to let it evolve first...

God moves in mysterious ways. If it happened, God had a reason for it; that you don't know the reason doesn't make it untrue.

God is outside of time (and space), 'millions of years' don't mean the same thing to God as they do to people.

Well that's one way to put it. I'm just saying, Intelligent Design does not have to mean God created all life. In fact, Creationism doesn't have to mean that. There are different kinds of creationism from different religion, but they mean the same thing, the believe that someone or something created life on Earth. So, whatever it was, could be anything.

Of course, then we ask, who created them? That is something I do not think we can fully comprehend.

Mike Noble wrote:Of course, then we ask, who created them? That is something I do not think we can fully comprehend.

If 'them' was God then it's a meaningless question. If God exists out of time then he has never not existed. Stephen Hawking has a similar answer regarding time before the big bang. What is south of the south pole?

George Spiggott wrote:What is south of the south pole?

Jerakeen.

Kilkrazy wrote:What about crocodiles?

I don't check the thread for a few days and man it just blew up... Crocs were most likely land lizards that found the shallow waters, swamps, and rivers unchecked sources of food. They had no higher predator to deal with, so over millions of years the evolved into what they are now.

Just like the whale was once a land mammal at one point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:God moves in mysterious ways. If it happened, God had a reason for it; that you don't know the reason doesn't make it untrue.

God is outside of time (and space), 'millions of years' don't mean the same thing to God as they do to people.

Do you believe that in our limited capacity of understanding not only very little of our own Earth, but the fact we know nothing of how the universe works, and yet you think we have the ability to define what a God wants? The holy texts of every major religion do not say that a God transcends time and space, and in fact there is zero mention of space, the universe, or anything else that has to do with science. really the fact of the matter is, that even the most modern and newest major religions, like Islam, is still borrowed from an older source, and is still old enough that there was never actually any science around to influence it's content.

The Bible itself is meant to be take literally, that is the actual meaning of it. However, people over many centuries have stopped taking it literally. Creationists believe that man was made from dirt and woman a rib from the dirt man. It is essentially believing in magic.

Intelligent design and other amalgamations of religion and science are attempts to modernize religion, as we progress as a society, and as a race of humans, it is clear to see that the Bible is mainly a bunch of collected and recycled mythologies. Whether to argue the fact if a God exists or not, is a bit different to drawing the conclusion that creationism and the Bible are both myths.

Mike Noble wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

Mike Noble wrote:.... After all, its seems odd that an omnipotent being, who can do anything, would make earth go through millions of years just to get to humans. So, they must not have been able to create life that advanced, and had to let it evolve first...

God moves in mysterious ways. If it happened, God had a reason for it; that you don't know the reason doesn't make it untrue.

God is outside of time (and space), 'millions of years' don't mean the same thing to God as they do to people.

Well that's one way to put it. I'm just saying, Intelligent Design does not have to mean God created all life. In fact, Creationism doesn't have to mean that. There are different kinds of creationism from different religion, but they mean the same thing, the believe that someone or something created life on Earth. So, whatever it was, could be anything.

Of course, then we ask, who created them? That is something I do not think we can fully comprehend.

Creationism as we know it in the USA and UK is an extreme evangelical Christian movement based on belief in the literal truth of the Bible, and its purpose is to be included in science classes. Creationism is so far away from mainstream Christian thinking that as mentioned earlier, even the Pope does not believe in it.

Of course all religions have creation myths. That is part of the purpose of a religion. The other religions, though, do not go around trying to force their individual religious cosmology to be taught in school science classes either in their own country or in others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crom wrote:

The Bible itself is meant to be take literally, that is the actual meaning of it.

How do you know that?

Kilkrazy wrote:

How do you know that?

It is quite obvious that the Bible describes God as all knowing, all powerful, and that those that ever crossed him have met their doom. Those that did join him, met with great sacrifice. If God is not powerful and capable of such things, then it makes the bible less meaningful, and it makes any promise of an after life null and void.

If you did not take it literally, then it would lose a lot of it's purpose. Though, I do agree with the sentiment that one can believe and not take the Bible as literal word of God, but rather a fable. I think the Bible itself, given how old it is, and how it was created was originally meant to be taken literally.

generalgrog wrote:
By the way Intelligent design is creationism. It may be young earth or old earth but it's still creationism.

GG

Well at least there's something we agree on!


You cannot belive in ID and evolution. Evolutionary theory doesn't disprove god but it does exclude intelligent influences as a requirement to work. Evolutionary theory describes how species form through internally consistent systems like natural and sexual selection, it doesn't require a superbeing to nudge or guide it a certain way to get the result we see today. If you belive that evolution is being guided you don't believe in evolution, you have modified the theory into something else.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Evolutionary theory doesn't disprove god but it does exclude intelligent influences as a requirement to work.

Not true. Evolution can follow from an intelligent creation. Then there's Solipsism to worry about.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Evolutionary theory describes how species form through internally consistent systems like natural and sexual selection, it doesn't require a superbeing to nudge or guide it a certain way to get the result we see today. If you belive that evolution is being guided you don't believe in evolution, you have modified the theory into something else.

Not describing X does not mean incompatible with X.

dogma wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Evolutionary theory doesn't disprove god but it does exclude intelligent influences as a requirement to work.

Not true. Evolution can follow from an intelligent creation. Then there's Solipsism to worry about.

Creation of life is abiogenesis not evolutionary theory.

*Maybe* god sparked the first self replicating molecules, but then again in Doctor Who Scaroth's spaceship exploding did the same for the primordial soup. Either way evolutionary theory describes the way life proceeds afterwards.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Creation of life is abiogenesis not evolutionary theory.

Yes, but you said that evolution excluded any intelligent input into the system.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Evolutionary theory doesn't disprove god but it does exclude intelligent influences as a requirement to work.

Maybe that isn't what you meant, though.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
*Maybe* god sparked the first self replicating molecules, but then again in Doctor Who Scaroth's spaceship exploding did the same for the primordial soup. Either way evolutionary theory describes the way life proceeds afterwards.

Yep.

I'm happy to believe in the existence of a Supreme Being.

I'm also happy to believe in the existence of all manner of spirits, sprites, demons and fairies, even entire pantheons of greek/norse gods.

It's fair game, and often fun, to believe in something for which there is no empirical evidence.

What it isn't fair game to believe in, in my humble opinion, is something for which there is empirical evidence against...

There may be a God, he may even take interest in human affairs - he may even have sent Jesus for our sins and so on, and we're ignorant of this. We have no evidence to say otherwise.

But it's unlikely that the world was created four thousand years ago, that dinosaurs and man lived peacefully together, and that, genetically, everyone, man, animal and plant is descended from a tiny band of fugitives on board an ark. Unlikely, because there is evidence against this on many fronts.

This is all my own humble opinion. No aggression or insult intended toward anyone.

Is it worth pointing out that, according to a recent article on the BBC Website (a source I do trust) that there is growing support for the origin of life on earth being in fact extraterrestrial in nature? Something to do with the direction of helixes or some such.

Mr Mystery wrote:Is it worth pointing out that, according to a recent article on the BBC Website (a source I do trust) that there is growing support for the origin of life on earth being in fact extraterrestrial in nature? Something to do with the direction of helixes or some such.

"There are those who believe that life here began out there"

That theory has been around for a long time, however it merely displaces the problem of accounting for the origin of life into space, nor does it remove the possibility of a divine creator.

Crom wrote:Do you believe that in our limited capacity of understanding not only very little of our own Earth, but the fact we know nothing of how the universe works, and yet you think we have the ability to define what a God wants?

No quite the opposite, we as finite beings cannot know everything about an infinite being.

Crom wrote:The Bible itself is meant to be take literally, that is the actual meaning of it. However, people over many centuries have stopped taking it literally. Creationists believe that man was made from dirt and woman a rib from the dirt man. It is essentially believing in magic.

No really it is not, many of the gospels differ regarding key events. Good luck following all the laws in Leviticus. You must interpret some of the bible. The Christian has a personal relationship with God, the bible is a tool to aid that but it is not God.

Crom wrote:Intelligent design and other amalgamations of religion and science are attempts to modernize religion, as we progress as a society, and as a race of humans, it is clear to see that the Bible is mainly a bunch of collected and recycled mythologies. Whether to argue the fact if a God exists or not, is a bit different to drawing the conclusion that creationism and the Bible are both myths.

True, every word of the bible could be false but it would not diminish God.

dogma wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:What is south of the south pole?

Jerakeen.

Bloody flat earthers.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Creationism as we know it in the USA and UK is an extreme evangelical Christian movement based on belief in the literal truth of the Bible, and its purpose is to be included in science classes. Creationism is so far away from mainstream Christian thinking that as mentioned earlier, even the Pope does not believe in it.

Completely disagree with this. Creationism is not an "extreme Christian movement". Just because the pope is an old earther doesn't make it mainstream. There are a lot of things the pope believes, that I don't agree with. That doesn't make me "extreme".

The fact is, most baptists, pentacostals, 7th day adventists are young earth creationists. That is a huge portion of the Church body. Just because you aren't COE or Roman Catholic doesn't make you "extreme".

GG

GazzyG wrote:I'm happy to believe in the existence of a Supreme Being.

I'm also happy to believe in the existence of all manner of spirits, sprites, demons and fairies, even entire pantheons of greek/norse gods.

It's fair game, and often fun, to believe in something for which there is no empirical evidence.

What it isn't fair game to believe in, in my humble opinion, is something for which there is empirical evidence against...

There may be a God, he may even take interest in human affairs - he may even have sent Jesus for our sins and so on, and we're ignorant of this. We have no evidence to say otherwise.

But it's unlikely that the world was created four thousand years ago, that dinosaurs and man lived peacefully together, and that, genetically, everyone, man, animal and plant is descended from a tiny band of fugitives on board an ark. Unlikely, because there is evidence against this on many fronts.

This is all my own humble opinion. No aggression or insult intended toward anyone.

Very well said, these folks believe what they do in spite of evidence that says otherwise.

generalgrog wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Creationism as we know it in the USA and UK is an extreme evangelical Christian movement based on belief in the literal truth of the Bible, and its purpose is to be included in science classes. Creationism is so far away from mainstream Christian thinking that as mentioned earlier, even the Pope does not believe in it.

Completely disagree with this. Creationism is not an "extreme Christian movement". Just because the pope is an old earther doesn't make it mainstream. There are a lot of things the pope believes, that I don't agree with. That doesn't make me "extreme".

The fact is, most baptists, pentacostals, 7th day adventists are young earth creationists. That is a huge portion of the Church body. Just because you aren't COE or Roman Catholic doesn't make you "extreme".

GG

I'm afraid I can't accept the idea that the Pope isn't mainstream.